Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
I think it is appalling that people shirk what I consider a responsibility to vote. I get it - it is also a privilege but I think our founding fathers pretty much assumed that anybody given the opportunity to vote would jump at the chance.
What seems to me to be a simple solution is never discussed. Why not make voting a reqluirement for everyone? I think Australia has that law now - maybe some others? I think we have a large segment of voters who fall into the "low information" category. I think back in the day when you had to be male and a land owner to vote, the big reason for that was to keep the low information people out of the process. You might say that we should think the same way today but I would argue that we might well have elections much more representative of the people if everyone was forced to make a choice.
It would also solve lots of other issues. It would require a national voter database since it would be the federal government that would enforce the voting law. Anybody not checked off after the election would have some nominal fee added to their taxes ($25 ?). It would also eliminate all the voter suppression efforts. Everybody would have to be registered and given ample opportunity to vote. It would be much harder to complain about non-existent voter fraud.
This is probably easier to fix than the other big problem we have - money driving elections. Since the Supreme Court has weighed in, our only option appears to be a constitutional ammendment. Universal voting requirement should simply be a new law which the opposition would have a hard time railing against.
Right on Dane!
Roland
Times Incommodious
{… a limerick …}
The Right makes our times incommodious
with behaviors so dadblasted odious
that our mood is appalled
and our hopes are stalled
now that things go in patterns {atrocious} atrodious.
=====================================
Virtuous? Egad!
{… a rhyme …}
Violence has become a VIRTUE?!?!
“If you’re not like Us, we’ll Hurt choo?!?!”
Small men’s macho is applauded?!?!
Violent whitey-ness is lauded?!?!
Uff dah. Egad.
Goon squads are bad.
===============================
This analysis is right on. I don't think that white poor and working class people who aren't voting are thinking that these Democrats are not liberal enough per se, but they they look at the Democratic and Republican candidates and shrug their shoulders. They don't see how voting for the Democrat is really going to make a difference in their lives.
The Democrats are still going by the playbook that you must run to the center to get the middle-of-the-road swing voters, but they don't seem to get that by being centrist and corporate friendly they are losing far more votes by turning off potential voters that are or should be part of their base, than they are gaining votes from swing voters.
On the other hand, there are states where I could make the case that Republican-lite Democrats are the best you're going to get. I'm specifically thinking about the Nebraska U.S. Senate seat that used to be occupied by Democrat Ben Nelson. Back in 2009-2010, along with Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson helped Republicans obstruct some good progressive legislation that had been passed by the House and presumably would have passed in the Senate on an up-or-down majority vote.
I had Ben Nelson pegged as a DINO, who 20 years ago would have been a Republican. But then Ben Nelson retired and Democrat Bob Carey (sp?) ran for the open seat against a Tea Party hard right Republican (I'm sorry but I'm blanking on his name). Judging by Carey's past track record, he is a good, solid Democrat. Unfortunately, the Republican won.
Should the conclusion be that in Nebraska, the best you can hope for is a Ben Nelson Democrat? I didn't like him, but he is significantly better than a Tea Party Republican. The center of the country (Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc.) has been red for many years--George H.W. Bush was soundly defeated by Clinton in 1992, but Bush won the states right down the center of the country. It is the south--especially when you get away from the deep south--that used to be winnable for Democrats and now has turned red. That is where we can definitely do better.
The Whigs were undermined by slaveowners and states' rights advocates who opposed the pro-Union, pro-industrial-economy, and infrastructural policies of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, and they rarely had any majorities in Congress. People stopped voting for the Whigs because it was unclear just what they stood for. The Whig Party died and was replaced by the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln. This is what is going to happen to today's Democrats; they will die and be replaced by a new progressive party. The Republicans of the 2010s will be like the Democrats of the 1850s - surviving by default but declining rapidly and ending up in utter disarray. But don't expect a Lincoln to emerge from any of this when the current two-party system collapses. Circumstances beyond our control - a dying middle class, ISIS, climate change - will put us in a worse place than this country was in back in 1860.
It's hard for Bernie Sanders to appeal to anyone that was born after 1960, simply because those people never saw what changed after the fifties and sixties. Actually, the mid seventies is when things started going awry. By that time the Neo-cons had completed their infiltration of the Republican party after leaving the Democratic party.
They are the new Confederacy. They are the new slave drivers of the modern age. They have destroyed the intellect of the middle class and the poor by demolishing education, jobs and our industry.
All of this can only add up to another civil war in my opinion. Things will continue getting worse until their is nothing left but the few rich and the many poor. So here we go again, history will repeat itself.
For sure the new middle is far to the right thanks to the Fascist Party controlling the message, and thus always in possession of the ball so to speak, and on offense. The Democrats are hopelessly on defense with little will to change. Just watch Wasserman Shultz and other Dems on any Sunday show going up against representatives of the Fascists and you'll see what I mean.....zero fight, nada, zilch.
Anthony Weiner should hold assertiveness seminars for these mild mannered souls. So yes, maybe Democratic Party whimpiness creates voter apathy because being on defense all the time sends the message that the party is filled with career politicians who could care less about fighting for the best interests of those who would otherwise get excited about voting.
My solution: compulsory voting and post fact filled signage at all polling places with brief summaries of the congressional voting record of both major parties. Make it mandatory for citizens to review the reality of what is happening in Washington before they vote. Facts for example like this one, the Democrats proposed to get rid of tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas, and the Republicans filibustered it. If our politicians disagree with this, then we have first hand evidence of shady and corrupt representation, a government that needs to be overthrown by "we the people," as in a Bernie Sanders political revolution.
Both right answers actually,yes for debunking the myths about Socialism, No because many did not see, or hear it due to the mainstream corporate media blacking him out as usual.
Kend, that's utter nonsense. You think a poor laborer is going to negogiate a better contract with a big corporation by their lonesome than collectively and, perhaps, with professional negotiators? If you do you're crazy, that laborer wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. They'd pay him as little as they could get away with paying him, they'd make him work at breakneck speed like he was one of their machines that never get tired and while he's working with his hands they'd tie a broom to his left leg and a dustpan to his right leg and make him sweep with his feet. They'd never give him a bathroom break and save money and increase production output by removing all the safety guards from the machinery. And if you don't think they would take a look one day at the conditions undocumented workers have to work under - and THAT is why you are against unions, because YOU and your cronies want to be able to do all of that as employers.
Undocumented workers are tolerated - and exploited - in Canada like everywhere else, I've known many personally. You live in Fairyland if you think everything is on the up and up in your country any more than any other.
A highly skilled professional might think they don't need a union but even they eventually realize they do. The doctors have the AMA, musicians, ballplayers all have their unions. Even business people have their "associations" for the simple reason that they realize that unity is strength.
You just don't want workers to have power - so you and your cronies can take advantage of them.
Comment above #9 was answer to RFord #7 above
Sorry about my misunderstanding
Boy!
Are you ever right!!!
Outcome could be bloody scary mate!
In any event I would say that Bernie is anti establishment and against corporatism and therefore fascism
How long can he fight and survive against the right wing machine???
It is wonderful to believe he could defeat these damned to hell wealth, worth, capital, owner psychopaths
Real democrats don't want republican-like-democrats such as Mrs. Clinton but most democrats don't have a choice as to who is chosen to be the democratic candidate for president but will vote for her if she is the only democratic choice. The real task is getting democrats to care enough to get out and vote in local and state elections. The republican majorities are being created by hate speech and false stories stirring up people who believe whatever they hear and see on TV (especially the FOX news channel), radio, and the internet. I've been in favor of re-instating The Fairness Doctrine and The Equal Time Rule. I've been getting lots of crazy conservative Facebook posts from my friends here in the deep south area of southwest Tennessee and north Mississippi as may be expected. I call them propaganda if they fit the definition and they all do. I counter by sharing articles from Politicus but at least I'm honest and up front because I say "here's some left wing propaganda for you". After all that's what they will call it anyway and if any of my conservative friends read it, at least I'm not just preaching to the choir. That's one thing we can all do. I don't like using propaganda but it's really counter propaganda. We now have to change the mindset of millions of brainwashed people. Enlightenment of those that don't want to be enlightened is a very difficult task.
I live in Oklahoma. The Democratic candidates in this state are republicans. This is mostly true everywhere. The only difference in the two parties is one enjoys human suffering. The other just don't care. If Bernie doesn't win a lot of peoples hopes are gonna be crushed. 2010 turnout will look good compared to what 2016 will look like.
Not too sure here!
What and who Is Bernie appealing to?
Bernie has just begun If all the people who are following him actually vote He will win by a landslide
I've come up with a new plan to solve the refugee problem
Lets bring them in and send back our red neck racist gun toting republicans. They can take their guns they have been hoarding and put them to use in Syria. I have red neck neighbors that are ready to go.
Joe Bageant's book Deer Hunting with Jesus explains it pretty well. Too damn bad he passed away several years ago.
On FDR, did you know that what came to be called AFDC (the primary welfare program) was first included in FDR's Social Security Act -- the New Deal? The (neoliberal) Clinton Democrats got rid of that. C,linton also had time to begin similarly "reforming" Social Security directly, targeting the disabled. Consider the liberal response (or lack thereof) to this.
On Sen. Sanders, he used to speak out powerfully for the poor, and the need for poverty relief programs. Certainly, socialists are keenly aware of the fact that our poverty crisis IS the proof of our deregilated capitalism. Unfortunately, this is not a trendy topic among (media) liberals, so he dumped the poor to appeal to middle class campaign donors. Pragmatic, but he lost a huge number of votes in the process.
Since the Clinton administration, it is Democrats who have taken the lead in the "war on the poor," the elderly poor, and the disabled. As our attention began turning to the 2016 elections, Democrats started 2015 with agreeing to virtually end food stamps to these people (cutting monthly allotments from roughly $115 to $15). And this is just the most recent cut made by Dems in Congress during this administration. Liberals have consistently responded to our poverty crisis by waving the banner of middle class elitism.
Giving Americans the benefit of the doubt, maybe the Reagan era's "dumbing down of America" was even more successful than we thought. This appears to be the case among Democrats and liberals, as they seem completely unaware of the reality that not everyone can work (health, etc.) , and there aren't jobs for all. When it comes to targeting the poor, Democrats just can't resist. What we've seen in recent decades is that Democrats present a greater risk to the survival of the poor (working poor, or far worse off) than Republicans.
The lack of real Democrats is why Bernie is so popular. The New Democrats don't speak to the base the way Bernie does. Bernie is an FDR Democrat, which was democratic socialism before it was called that. We need Bernie in the catbird's seat this election to bring those poor folks back on board.
Interesting police incident.
Mention of the Tamir Rice shooting reminded me of an incident that happened in San Diego a bit over a year ago. The article at http://sdcitybeat.com/article-13447-city-heights-incident-raises-questions-about-police-response.html includes a link to a video. SDPD respond to an incident and hold a man at gunpoint for about 10 minutes; and they were at the wrong apartment. It was a quasi-comedy of errors in that the person who reported the incident was relaying secondhand --- which should have been an indicator that the incident was no longer in progress; yet police responded as if it was. Any-brown-person-will-do, might have been a factor in how things unfolded. The video could be a case study; it shows events from near beginning to end. Luckily nobody got hurt --- which could have easily happened if a car had backfired or something, and PD had itchy trigger fingers.
Ok Ken D. , maybe the solution is to not obligate unions to represent those who don't pay their membership fees. But, I guess the big bad government does not give them that option, does it. This is called 'stacking the deck'. Maybe, on principle, you should refuse to withhold taxes or SS contributions also, and so on. Step out there and be a man (or whatever).
Kend, how does it harm you to collect the dues?
Vote for Bernie Sanders as Time Magazine Person of the Year here: http://time.com/4108617/person-of-the-year-poll-2015/